ART@

[Jim Bower]

> Given the relevance of ART1 to neural systems, including
> those that may actually exist in the brain, and given the proven
> stability of the ART1 algorithm, it seems to me that any argument that
> ART1 is simply this, that or the other algorithm is a moot point.

As a neurobiologist who works with anatomically and physiologically
derived models of cerebral cortical circuits, and memory, 
there is very little in the posted description of ART@ that
justifies this statement.  Ultimately, proposed solutions to
engineering problems must live and die on their usefulness,
not on asserted similarities to computing devices we do not
understand (the brain in this case).  It seems to me that if there
is any lesson from the last 10 years research in "neural networks",
it is that a thorough investigation of related algorithms in
other domains is useful and appropriate.  After all, this is
supposed to be at least partially an intellectual exercise, 
not completely a sales job. 


Jim Bower